ORTIGAS v.
LUFTHANSA ● This argument occurred in the presence of the other passengers, one of whom
Damages recoverable from Common carriers; Moral | June 30, 1975 | Barredo, J.
Digest maker: Samtac
SUMMARY: Plaintiff Ortigas booked first class Lufthansa tickets from Rome to HK
through Alitalia, an Italian airline. Howevr, after checking in and seeing that he carried a
Filipino passport, Ortigas was told that his seat would be given to a Belgian. He asked that
the papers of the Belgian be examined to see if he indeed had a preferential right to the seat
but the Lufthansa employee refused, raised his voice and said that he could take an
economy seat and be allowed a refund. Ortigas requested the employee to call another
airline that has first class seats but he was repeatedly refused by the airlines in Cairo,
Dharham and Calcutta. It was only in Bangkok when he was asked if he wanted to move to
first class but he refused, saying that he would not as a sign of protest. He protested when
he reached Hongkong and filed a case for damages when he returned to Manila.
DOCTRINE: When it comes to contracts of common carriage, inattention and lack of care
on the part of the carrier resulting in the failure of the passenger to be accommodated in the
class contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud which entitles the passenger to the award
of moral damages in accordance with Article 2220 of the Civil Code. Giving preference to a
passenger of another nationality aggravated the damage or injury suffered, but the very act
alone of deliberately downgrading despite confirmed reservation for first class
accommodation is sufficient ground for relief
FACTS:
● A First Class Pan American Ticket was issued to plaintiff Ortigas by defendant
Lufthansa German Airlines which would take him from Manila to HK, US,
Europe, Asia, the Far East, and then back to Manila.
○ Ortigas' ticket for all these different legs of his journey was first
class.
● In NY, he decided to leave out some cities included in his original itinerary, to
be in HK on a certain day because of several appointments.
○ He went to the Trans World Airlines (TWA) and had his Pan American
ticket changed with First Class TWA Ticket.
● Ortigas arrived in due course in Rome. To be sure he could fly first class to HK,
for his appointments there the next day, Ortigas repaired to the office of the
Alitalia (airline in Rome) to book passage.
○ It was confirmed by the Alitalia employee who attached a validating
sticker on his ticket.
○ The authority of Alitalia to book a flight for other airlines is pursuant
to the IATA agreement (International Air Transport Association) to
which Alitalia and Lufthansa were parties.
● After checking in and seeing that he carried a Filipino passport, Ortigas was
told that his seat would be given to a Belgian.
○ He asked that the papers of the Belgian be examined to see if he indeed
had a preferential right to the seat but the Lufthansa employee refused,
raised his voice and said that he could take an economy seat and be
allowed a refund.
○ Fearing he would have a recurrence of his heart ailment, Ortigas
took a nitroglycerin pill which his doctor advised him to take on
occasions of stress.
was Amado Castro, and the plaintiff felt embarrassed and humiliated because
the Lufthansa employee was shouting at him and treating him the way he
did.
● Ortigas requested the employee to call another airline that has first class seats
but the employee refused and said that he will be transferred to first class in
Cairo.
○ Despite this assurance, the employee wrote a notation on his ticket that
translates to “travelled economy class Rome to Hongkong St.”
● When they reached Cairo, he was not allowed to move to first class and was
told that they did not receive any communication to allow him transfer.
○ He was told that he can move at Dharham. But at Darham he was told
the same thing. When they reached Calcutta, he again asked to be
moved to first class but this was again denied. It was only in Bangkok
when the chief steward asked him if he wanted to move to first class
but he refused, saying that he would not as a sign of protest. He
protested when he reached Hongkong and filed a case for damages
when he returned to Manila.
● CFI:
○ Defendant’s bad faith: It can be gleaned from the notation: "Travelled
economy class Rome to HK St", that the defendant's employee knew all
along the plaintiff would not travel first class, and yet he deliberately
made him believe he would be transferred to first class from Cairo to
HK.
● CFI decision: After three years of postponements, CFI held in favor of
plaintiff Ortigas for the Lufthansa's failure to comply with its
obligation to give first class accommodation to Ortigas, aggravated by
the giving of the space instead to a Belgian and the improper conduct
of its agents in dealing with him during the occasion of such
discriminatory violation of its contract of carriage.
ISSUES & RATIO:
1. WON there was a breach of contract of carriage - YES.
2. WON CFI erred in the award of damages to plaintiff? – YES, but only because he deserves
more
● Defendant:
○ Claims firstly that the Alitalia employee who validated and confirmed
Ortigas' reservation must have made a mistake because actually, he
was informed by the Lufthansa Rome office that Ortigas could only be
waitlisted.
○ Assuming, however, there was such an error, it has been indisputably
proven that under the so-called pool arrangement among different
airline companies pursuant to the inernational agreement of which
Alitalia and Lufthansa are signatories, both companies are constituted
thereby as agents of each other in the issuing of tickets and other
matters pertaining to their relations with those who would need their
services.
● SC:
 ○ On its face, the annotations made by Alitalia on the ticket here in
dispute cannot have any other meaning than that the reservation of
Ortigas for the Rome-HK flight was validated and confirmed.
■ Lady at the airport terminal confirmed that plaintiff’s
reservation was correct.
■ Even witness Ivo Lazzari admitted that it was a fact that the
said reservation of plaintiff for first class was confirmed,
albeit he qualified that this was done already in the morning
of Nov. 18th, the day of the flight, almost at the last hour.
■ There was, therefore, a valid and binding contract between
Lufthansa and the plaintiff to transport him as a first class
passenger from Rome to Hongkong on Nov. 18, 1963, and
this agreement the defendant violated by compelling the
plaintiff to travel as an economy passenger. (See notes)
● It cannot be said the breach was the result of an
honest mistake or excusable negligence.
○ Verily, such treatment given to plaintiff was completely wrong and
absolutely unjustifiable.
■ Nobody, much less a common carrier who is under constant
special obligation to give utmost consideration to the
convenience of its customers, may be permitted to relieve
itself from any difficulty situation created by its own lack of
diligence in the conduct of its affairs in a manner
prejudicial to such customers.
■ When it comes to contracts of common carriage, inattention
and lack of care on the part of the carrier resulting in the
failure of the passenger to be accommodated in the class
contracted for amounts to bad faith or fraud which entitles
the passenger to the award of moral damages in accordance
with Article 2220 of the Civil Code.
○ But in the instant case, the breach appears to be of graver nature, since
the preference given to the Belgian passenger over plaintiff was done
willfully and in wanton disregard of plaintiff's rights and his
dignity as a human being and as a Filipino, who may not be
discriminated against with impunity. (See notes)
● Lufthansa: There could not have been any possible discrimination by reason of
race against Ortigas because from his appearance, said plaintiff can easily be
taken for a European or white more than his own witness Amado Castro and
besides, there were other orientals in the same flight on that occasion
○ SC: Doesn’t really matter since what appears from the evidence in this
case is not really a case of a general policy of discriminating against
orientals or non-whites, but a specific act of Lufthansa employee at
the airport of giving preference to a Belgian after examining Ortigas
passport wherein his Filipino nationality is noted.
RE: DAMAGES
● The Court believes that these amounts are not enough
○ The award of moral damages should be increased to P150,000
■ Disparity between then Lopez case (See notes) and this one that
here the offense, which, as in Cuenca (see notes), is aggravated by
the Lufthansa employee at Rome having falsely noted on the
ticket that Ortigas was travelling in economy from Rome to HK,
was repeated four times in the same trip, namely in Rome,
Cairo, Dharham and Calcutta.
■ More importantly, unlike in the case of Lopez, Ortigas was
suffering from a weak heart and under doctor's advice to travel
only in first class, hence, his being compelled to stay in economy
or tourist class during the major part of his trip, must have given
him added apprehensive feelings about his safety.
○ Exemplary damages should be increased to P100,000.
■ The record of this case taken together with what are revealed in
the other similar cases decided by this Court, those
aforediscussed, convinces the Court that defendant, as an airline,
should be made to pay an amount that can really serve as a
deterrent against a seeming pattern of indifference and
unconcern, and what is worse, of discrimination for racial
reasons, discernible in the treatment of air passengers.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified by raising the award of
moral and exemplary damages to plaintiff Ortigas to P150,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively.
In all other respects, including as to the payment of interests on the said amounts, the same is
affirmed.
NOTES:
JURISPRUDENCE
● Northwest Airlines Inc. vs. Cuenca:
○ Cuenca boarded a Northwest plane in Manila with a first class ticket to
Tokyo, but upon arrival at Okinawa, an agent of the company rudely
compelled him, over his protest, to move over to the tourist class, which he
had to do, so he could reach the international conference he was attending
on time. Under these facts, the Court held that the P20,000 awarded by the
lower court to Cuenca "may well be considered as nominal and also as
exemplary, the Court of Appeals having modified the trial court's
designation thereof as moral, saying it should have been nominal.
● Fernando Lopez, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways:
○ Lopez made reservations for first class tickets for himself and his family for
a Tokyo-San Francisco flight. Mistakenly, however, defendant's agent
cancelled said reservation, but expecting some cancellations before the
flight scheduled about a month later, the reservations supervisor decided
to withhold the information from them, with the result that upon arrival in
Tokyo, the Lopezes discovered they had no first class accommodations and
were thus compelled to take the tourist class
○ Court held there was a breach of the contract of carriage and viewed as
the element of bad faith entitling the plaintiffs to moral damages for such
contractual breach, the failure of the agents of the defendant to inform the
plaintiffs on time that their reservation for first class had long before been
cancelled by mistake
● Air France v. Carrascoso:
○ "The evidence shows that defendant violated its contract of transportation
with plaintiff in bad faith, with the aggravating circumstances that defendant's
Manager in Bangkok went to the extent of threatening the plaintiff in the
presence of many passengers to have him thrown out of the airplane to
give the "first class" seat that he was occupying to, again using the words
of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, a "white man" whom he (defendant's
Manager) wished to accommodate, and the defendant has not proven that
this "white man" had any "better right" to occupy the "first class" seat that
the plaintiff was occupying, duly paid for, and for which the
corresponding "first class" ticket was issued by the defendant to him."